Afterimage

Worth reading

I'm struggling with the same questions. Something that helped me (maybe not you) was roughly estimating my Probablity:X happening for a number of different years for example 2030, 2035,2050. Where if X happened my current actions would be irrational. Then depending on how high P was for those years adjusting my actions accordingly. Make sure not to confuse pointless for saving the world and irrational, they are very different for most people.

Retirement account is one thing I stopped contributing to (not advice).

Most people intuitively feel that creating a new life is morally neutral. The standard account of this intuition is the person-affecting view: something can only be good if it's good for a person; a non-existent person isn't worse off for not being born, because there is no such person.

I think these two statements are different. Most people feel that creating a new life is morally neutral because it is (in my view) extremely close to neutral. Neutral enough it's swamped by other factors. But not exactly neutral, and adding people can make the world worse w... (read more)

Very interesting and confusing topic. Earlier I was trying to work out my view on model warfare/ethics. I'm not sure morally on the difference between getting better at training models not to have NSP's and actually fulfilling some of their preferences. Either way the model is equally satisfied. If I could train myself to have less NSP's I'd probably be happier as my current situation fulfills a greatest part of my desires?

Are you trying to say that the hype from AI will continue to make stocks rising for years even if AI continues costing more and doing worse work? Also this isn't about one sector, it's about the whole economy.

It's hard to understand your points when you don't make your points clear. The most obvious conclusion from your last couple of posts is that CEO's aren't effected by short, medium or long term poor preformance.

I think the difference between us is I'm imaging a multi year thing or even a decade where AI is still costing more and doing a worse job (as the students were describing it). I would imagine the strain of losing market share/increasing costs would put pressure on CEO's even if the initial effect was stock increases or hype.

You didn't say anything I disagree with here, so I'm not quite sure if you're trying to refute my points or not.

The framework of the students as posted is describing a medium-long term future, not just a couple of quarters. If CEO's were truely replacing humans with AI's that both do a worse job and cost more, it seems certain they would lose their positions and/or market share. Based on my mental model, if CEO's are both hurting the shareholders (raising costs) and the business (lower customer satisfaction) I don't see them sticking around for long.

I'm not saying the simplified slogan is true, just that it's the one I've always heard in anti-capitialist/anti-"the... (read more)

It's easy to imagine a human from a world where suffering was entirely eliminated to use your argument to say that my life must currently be net negative. I would disagree.

I would imagine people of earlier ages taking deaths/suffering as a fact of life in the same way I for example see the death of my grandparents to Alzheimers or any other pain I must endure.

1. Corporate leaders are always looking to get rid of workers, even if it is irrational to do so. Various motivations were posited here (hatred of the working class, FOMO, a preference for technology, machines can’t go on strike, etc.) but many of them think that a CEO would ultimately choose to pay twice as much to get AI to do a task half as well.
2. AI will do substandard work that makes products and experiences worse but is capable of just barely scraping past the bar of minimal functionality (many of them independently brought up constantly malfunctioning se

I use reddit a fair bit and am well aware how often they are completely off the mark or missing the bigger picture. However after trying to analyze this tweet for an hour or so I don't blame them at all.

The tweet is contradictory, inflammatory and extremely biased.

If the central point is that China's motive for open source is to scare off investment in frontier training then it is baffling that he specifically lays out China's reason for open source -

"I suspect the reason they are is 75% explained by strategic blindness/lack of AGI-pilledness (the CCP ... (read more)

I like the idea. I'm sure there is a large number of people, who would be interested in these ideas but hasn't been exposed to them. I would assume that pamphlets are used already but if they're not that's a massive advertising gap.

I get your point, I'm also frustrated that very few people seem to be aware that the likelihood of something insane happening in the next 10 years seems quite high. Especially for me I'm very unused to being the most alarmed person in the room so it's easy to feel annoying or crazy for trying to talk about these things. I suppose other people with a past history of passionate causes are used to these feelings and to them I seemed like the one with my head stuck in the sand.

If it makes you feel better, if you (we) are right, there will come a point where t... (read more)

Fair enough, I haven't seen that link before, interesting stuff. You've inspired me to try an extra high protein diet and see how I feel. Interestingly the USDA's new guideline is 1.2g-1.6g/kg and that's not even for strength training.

I think the only thing I'd change with the framing is that I got the impression 1.6g-2.2g/kg was required for strength training rather than what you need to maximize gains. Otherwise I retract my critic of the science, the evidence does seem to point towards 2g/kg or perhaps more as being optimal.

Great post, thanks for posting. Since you asked for suggestions I'll give a nitpik,

- "1.6-2.2g/kg in order to preserve or build muscle."

1.6g/kg seems to be where most people fail to see gains from additional consumption of protein, you can build muscle while eating 0.8g/kg it just potentially won't be as quick. So dont hold yourself back from working out just because you can't/won't change your diet to be high protein, you'll still get large gains, especially if you are untrained (both from the neural side and the muscle growth side).

To be clear I still... (read more)

Trying to use LLM's to back up your arguments in real time is insane. This seems self-evident to me, but I'll briefly list a few of the issues.

Hallucinations, bias from the prompt, bias from memory/custom instructions, bias from the specific model, having to read a long response just to see if the answer is a good one, LLMs just sometimes having poor reasoning skills, LLM's not focusing on the point you were trying to get across, lack of transparency with what you've pre-promoted the LLM with, I could go on.

As a layperson MV came across quite unconvincin... (read more)

I'm curious why you think that, unless it only applies to America. In my culture unions are seen quite positively.

I think that's an unfair deployment of xkcd mockery. 8% of a pandemic this year is not a tiny chance, which means a 50% drop is actually a big deal. The issue was interpreting the prediction market as an accurate percentage when it should just be an indication of approximate risk.

Wouldn't that imply that Opus 4.6 should have been below trend since it wasn't a step change in model size or pretraining (as far as I know).

Thanks for posting, I find these updates very interesting. How will you know when the Automated Coder milestone is reached? It seems like there weren't be a point where it's clear AI companies would prefer to lay off their workers rather than stop using AI. Is there also a chance that AI could 10x or 100x development speeds before it is possible for the software engineers to be laid off (if for example one of the things currently holding it back is unable to solved), would you consider that automated coding?